Christopher Elliot of MSNBC makes pathetic argument for airline re-regulation

Christopher Elliot. Another unreasoned voice of MSNBC.

I kid you not, that is the line for take-off at Seattle Tacoma airport. And Elliot believes the on-time performance should be better and we should re-regulate airlines because the government would do a better job. Guess what Chris, I wouldn't let the government anywhere near airlines until they can sort out the air traffic control mess that they preside over.

Christopher Elliot called for airlines to be re-regulated. Elliot said, "If you're a passenger, you're seeing the results of a recklessly deregulated airline industry right now. Airlines treat us like cargo — and they get away with it because the government has taken a "hands off" approach to the industry." Elliot points out 8 different areas that the government should involve themselves in.

Ticket Prices

Elliot argues that airlines shouldn't be able to offer cheap fares, I kid you not. "Airlines shouldn't be allowed to offer unreasonably low fares" the elitest Elliot says. No longer should flying be for everyone, he believes we should pay through our noses for fares. However, the consumer has been the biggest benefactor of de-regulation. As the Brookings Institute points out, since federal restrictions on routes and fares were removed, consumers have been saving $20 billion a year on air fares, when adjusted for inflation, according to Brookings. Fares have dropped by more than 30 percent, on average, and as much as 70 percent when tickets are bought in advance, the group concluded. Indeed, if the negative of de-regulation was that airfares are as much as 70 percent cheaper than pre-deregulation, then things are looking quite rosey, aren't they?

Executive pay

"Delta Air Lines chief executive Richard Anderson will pick up stock awards worth about $13.6 million beginning next year as a reward for merging with ailing Northwest Airlines. Delta lost $50 million last quarter. Do you really need me to tell you this is madness?" Mr Elliot asks. Well, given Delta's fuel bill for the last quarter alone rose $800 million I'd say that's a pretty darn decent result! Let me know when you find a company that can improve year-on-year quaterly profits by $800 million.

Disclosure

"The price of an airline ticket must include all taxes, fees, surcharges, drinks and meals (on longer flights), a piece of checked luggage and a carry-on bag. The European Union is about to require this kind of price transparency. Why not here?" Elliot asks. "There's only one reason I can think of: By deceiving customers into thinking tickets are cheaper than they are" he asserts. Well, Mr. Elliot, I'm not sure when the last time you booked your own ticket was, but before you click "buy" on the internet you are told exactly what price your credit card will be charged for. Perhaps you should start telling Best Buy and Walmart to include taxes on all of the items they sell too before getting out the correct change at the cash register before realizing tax was not factored into the price of the CD you're about to buy.

Human rights

"Seats should come with minimum legroom and a minimum width, consistent with the average height and weight of passengers." Mr. Elliot says. If you want more room, pay for business class. Otherwise, sit yourself in your seat that is about 70% cheaper than it would otherwise be if you had your way, Christopher. "On longer flights, essentials like water and food need to be included in the price of a ticket" Elliot says. Guess what, Chris? They are! On transatlantic and transpacific flights, all food and drink (with the exception of some alcohol) is free. On shorter domestic flights, there is a charge for some food. However, airlines are happy for you to bring your own onboard. Should amtrak be forced to provide you with a three-course meal and complimentary wine? Additionally, Elliot asserts "Passengers shouldn't be imprisoned on a plane that's parked at the terminal without access to working restrooms." For your information, Chris, on aircraft with one restroom, aircraft by law are not allowed to dispatch in accordance with the MMEL (Master Minimum Equipment List) and MEL (Master Equipment List). Other aircraft with multiple restrooms are usually required to have at least the most forward restroom working in accordance again with both MMEL and MEL.

The truth

Elliot continues his tirade, "Airlines should be required to give passengers the facts about delays and cancellations. No more blaming the weather when it's actually a mechanical problem." I've never come across an airline that insists weather related problems have forced them to cancel a service when the sun is shining. In my personal experience, I've only ever had one flight cancelled. That was due to weather - aircraft are not designed to land in tornadoes or wind speeds in excess of 100 knots. You sure would be moaning if you were a passenger onboard an aircraft that did attempt it. I'll give you a hint - you wouldn't be alive to tell the tale. "No more "creeping" delays in which customers are strung along, often for hours, until their flight is canceled." Elliot adds. Unfortunately, when the problem is mechanical, it can often be difficult to put an accurate timescale on solving the issue. From personal experience, after a hydraulic leak on landing in Bologna that depleted all of the system B hydraulic fluid from our aircraft we attempted to find out if a local Italian Alitalia engineer a) had the qualification to fit the part onto a Boeing 737 and b) if a spare part was available in Bologna. If both a and b could satisfied, the problem could be rectified in about one hour. As was the case, the airline had to fly an engineer and a spare part on their later flight to Bologna and fit the new spare part and replenish the hydraulic fluid before the plane could then depart. All in all, the delay was about 5 hours. The issue was not the fault of the airline, the hydraulic valve that failed has lasted a lot longer on many other aircraft and was something that could not be forseen. The aircraft was properly maintained as per national aviation authority regulations and Boeing mandates. But events change and airlines do their best to keep passengers informed.

"Airlines should not be permitted to sell more seats than they have. That would take care of the problem of involuntary denied boarding — better known as "bumping."" Elliot insists. First, some airlines actually have a no-show rate of over 10% on certain routes. Why shouldn't they take advantage of that? If you want to stop the practice, people should start turning up for their flights on time! However, when you are bumped, it's not game-over. You're handsomely compensated with usually the minimum of a free trip in the future as a minimum. Some people are compensated more handsomely and it's very rare that people are bumped involuntarily. Often there are more than enough volunteers to take the offer of cash and free flights.

Finally, Elliot says that codesharing is "fundamentally dishonest and should be illegal." Speaking from experience, code-sharing has saved so much hassle for me. I can now travel from London to Indianapolis on ticket, despite travelling with two different airlines. I can fly British Airways to Chicago and connect seamlessly through O'Hare and onwards to Indianapolis without having to collect my luggage and re-check it. It reduces connection times, reduces hassle and increases the number of destinations that you're able to fly to. All airlines inform passengers when they sell a ticket if the carrier operating the service is not their own. It's not dishonest, it has complete transparancy.

Frequent flier programs

Regarding reward programs, Elliot "think[s] they're the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the traveling public". He argues that "airlines [should] tell us how many miles are outstanding" I'm not actually sure what that would achieve. "How many award seats are available on a given flight" some airlines do that. However, if they're not available you are unable to book them. If they're available for you to book it doesn't really matter how many there are, does it? Finally "how much our miles are worth. Oh, and award tickets should be free." Well they do tell you how much your miles are worth. The majority of airlines charge 25,000 for a domestic round-trip air fare, 50,000 miles for transatlantic round trips and generally double if you upgrade to business class. Here for example is Delta's award chart. Each airline has their own version. You need to look a little harder, Chris. As for award tickets being free, airlines just require the passenger pays the tax. That's fair, as the airline does not get a tax exemption if the passenger is on an award ticket. Frequent flier programs are great, I was able to book a free domestic US ticket between Los Angeles and Indianapolis for only the cost of the tax because I had flown round trip once betweeSon London, England and Auckland, New Zealand. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Passenger compensation

"In 2004", Elliot says, "the European Union adopted tough new airline passenger rights regulations that required airlines to compensate air travelers when flights were delayed and canceled." However, to his credit (for once) he notes that "Regulation 261 isn't without its problems (for example, it has a provision that lets airlines off the hook during "extraordinary" circumstances, which are not well-defined)". I'll define them for you Christopher. One such example is weather, which you alluded to earlier. In some circumstances, such as fog, certain aircraft legally are not allowed to descend below 200ft if they do not get visual contact with the runway. Some long-haul aircraft can land without visual contact with the runway, but these aircraft do not, rightly so, operate on every route. Therefore the airline cannot break the law to land an aircraft in inclement weather. That is an extraordinary circumstance that I do not believe an airline should have to compensate a passenger for, afterall, the airline cannot play God and lift the fog or stop hurricanes. However, airlines always allow passengers on cancelled services to rebook free of charge or receive a full refund.

Common sense

Elliot says, "airline tickets should be transferable. Changing the name on a ticket, particularly if you've made a typographical error, shouldn't cost an extra cent." He insists changing an e-ticket does not cost a cent. I'm not sure about Christopher, but I've never come across anyone willing to work for an airline for free. A paid employee has to make that change, therefore it's not free. However, insisting tickets "should be transferable" perhaps Mr. Elliot will write an article about Amtrak for us soon. Amtrak's website states, "Reservations must be made when required, and tickets are not transferable."

Elliot, clearly getting a little flustered, says " a ticket ought to represent an airline's obligation to get you to your destination when it says it will — not when it gets around to it." So, in your call for re-regulation, will you insist that the government-run air traffic control system is reformed to enable a larger aircraft flow? The large proportion of delays come down to air traffic control issues. Perhaps he will also support the construction of several new runways at La Guardia, Kennedy Intl. and several others throughout the USA where over-congestion causes knock-on effects to other services and airports. Unfortunately, an aircraft cannot take off or land without air traffic control authority and airlines cannot be held at fault for that, they can do nothing to help it.

Concluding, Elliot says "If you've made it this far in my deregulation diatribe, you've probably arrived at one of two conclusions. One, you think I'm a socialist." Yes, Mr. Elliot, I do. And not only that, but one with a very unconvincing argument, too. "Or two", Elliot adds, "you're wondering if it's such a good idea for the government to get involved in the airline industry. That's a reasonable response. To which I would say: No worse than if the government didn't get involved." I disagree.

The argument for re-regulation is underpinned, Elliot says, by the fact that "in the three decades before deregulation, the commercial aviation industry had only three unprofitable years. Since then, it's had 14 losing years." That's just US airlines though. Since privatization in 1987, British Airways has only failed to deliver a yearly profit once and that was in the year following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Sure, airlines in the USA have been poorly managed over the years but there is reason for hope. After flirting with chapter 11, Northwest and Delta Air Lines have announced their merger will go ahead reducing a part of the problem with airlines struggling to be profitable - there has been too much capacity in the market. This consolidation, in addition to the US Airways and America West merger is a good step forward US aviation. The recent focus by Delta on foreign markets, in particular expansion into Africa, has caused revenues to rise and only posted a $26 million operating loss for the three months to September despite fuel costs rising $800 million in the same period. When you look at the state of the government's finances, I think it's quite obvious that Delta's fiscal progress is far more confidence-inspiring than the ballooning federal deficit.

The government doesn't do anything well, it won't help airlines.

Back To Top

	Re-regulate the airlines? Heck, yes	Associated Press	Mon Nov 24	61
	The unfriendly skies: Best and worst of air travel	Associated Press	Mon Nov 24	1